220VoltsallCore

You’ll want to make sure firmware tpm is enabled.

Windows isn't gonna let you update if you don't meet the requirements. 
 
But make a backup, just in case something goes wrong. 

Earlier ones no, but Windows 11 wants at least an 8th gen on the Intel side, and all boards that can run an 8th gen do.

Are those the only two available ssd in your country ?
What site you are buying from? Amazon india ?

Theyre both the same size? Well whatever's cheaper then, thats a big jump in price for 99% the same SSD

You have plenty of RAM, try editing with and without the shared system RAM cache enabled and see if it makes a difference on your system.
 
The drive will work either way, but without the cache it might feel slower.

It's not going to hurt anything if you leave it there.

If you want to use its cache functionality, then it needs to run. The reason it hogs 400 MB is precisely because it works as an in-memory disk cache.

I'd generally disable the caching software in those drive utilities. They can lead to data loss as they don't actually write data when it says it has been. Windows also does caching using all the empty ram.
 
Thats likely the ram cache.
 
Otherwise you don't need these programs to use the drive at all.

Problem is the panel is set for 4K with 3840x2160 physical pixels, so anything else than 4K and 1080p (which is just 1/4 of 4K) may look blurry due to not matching with the pixel layout
What's your GPU ? 

Depends on the specific panel and what's specifically being portrayed.
 
I'll try to explain this below...
 
On my specific 1440p monitor the majority of games look excellent but a few games you can notice a blur distortion when putting this 1440p monitor in 1080p fullscreen. A quick fix for this blur distortion in these few games when attempting 1080p resolution is to play in windowed mode with the black bars on top and bottom of the display.
 
Ever since I upgraded from a 1060 to a 1070 though I don't ever need to run games in 1080p resolution.
 
So for you, at 4K games are going to eat your fps simply because there's way more pixels to render than 1440p so instead of upgrading your CPU and GPU or downscaling to 1440p(where the blur distortion will show up in some games) I'd recommend buying a cheap 1440p 160-180 Hz monitor and use your 4K monitor as your second display. Here in the US you can find a great price of literally $150-$170 for a 1440p 160-180 Hz IPS monitor.
 
In the mean time, try more games at 1440p on your current 4K monitor. Some games you will find to look excellent and not have the blur distortion, but keep in mind that all monitors are different when it comes to downscaling.
 
Another thing is that certain games that you may have played on certain TVs with certain systems(whether it was a PC or a console) look even better on certain 4K displays because all displays also upscale differently, especially with certain consoles/systems. For example, I remember being completely blown away at how much better Battlefield 1 looked on my 4K monitor using a regular Xbox One S than it did on my 4K TV and one reason is because of how well the Xbox One S upscaled the specific game known as Battlefield 1.
 
Try this link and this link to see one aspect I just mentioned above when it comes to 4K upscaling. There's an enhancement and then there's a form of upscaling, which are two different things. And there's also HDR support.
 
It's these types of technologies that make what you see on different displays at different resolutions... different. So what I see on my displays might be completely different than what you see on yours.

No, as one pixel on 1080 would be exactly 2x2 pixels on 4k, while on 1440p its not even close to a whole number of pixels, it would have decimals. I believe there would be one 1080p pixel per 1,333333....x1,33333... Pixel on 1440p. If my math is right.

If the 4k monitor and 1440p monitor is the same size, 1080p should look worse on the 1440p monitor than the 4k one, theoretically.

Any non native res wont look good.
 
Then there is also size of the screen, distance from it,... to take into account

Thats because you are NOT running at native res.
 
At 1080p 1 pixel has to take up 4 pixels on your screen and that isn't perfect so the image becomes less sharp.

I have 4k monitor, 3072x1728, aka 80% look good to me in games. Change it in game and not in windows/drivers.
 
More and more games have seperate display resolution and game/render resolution. Have display resolution at native resolution and change the render resolution. It looks better.

In this case, I'd just use upscale then.

Id say first try 3d render resolution and disable AA before changing actual resolution. As going under native res of the display will result in an unsharp image compared to a display with that native res.
 
Keeping the native res and just lowering the 3d render resolution keeps the image sharp as can be and will lower the load on the gpu by virtually decreasing the rendering resolution in game.
 
 

Maybe try 1080p and set the scaling to integer in your GPU drivers. Higher non-integer resolutions can look way worse than lower integer resolutions.
 
From a quick google search the game seems to have a resolution scaling option. If that's true, that's your best option. Set it to 90% or 80% and the game will render at a lower resolution, but the UI will still render in crisp 4K.

I don't think HWi does that. 
I'd recommend Process Explorer

Just get any OLED panel if you want real HDR great experience.
 
I am not typing reason as you can find from internet why OLED is the best panel for HDR.
 
As for your topic reason "why does every youtubers buy high end camera and still just upload non hdr videos."
My own opinion - they are basically no reason to use HDR videos, 1st many user still have bad HDR monitor and this will impact the viewer, 2nd HDR need more bandwidth, this impact to low internet user and 3rd they are no visual experience really need for those YouTuber video to perform in HDR.

HDR is out is my expertise, all I know about HDR is that there are many forms of HDR and most of them are pretty basic and nothing special. As for contrast ratio, it's also out of my expertise. I just remember there's backlight and dim light gimmicks involved in certain types of contrasting and that native contrasting is more important than those gimmick types of contrasting. I also remember a VA monitor has a higher contrast ratio than an IPS monitor but a VA monitor also has ghosting issues when it comes to high frame rate gaming. I definitely notice things such as washed out colors or blacks not being the deepest blacks on my current TN monitor but these are not things I invest a lot of time noticing so it doesn't bother me when I spot them.

Colors do have an impact, but it's not the most important factor. And typically you don't need to worry about it. Any monitor that delivers good HDR already comes with a good color gamut of at least 90% DCI-P3, most are over 95% nowadays. All current OLED models at least sit around 97%. So what I'm trying to say: If you're looking at a decent HDR monitor, all of them have good enough color coverage.

Just released. 
 
https://youtu.be/XdLt3LegOKU?si=jtHg42KZReRlMOXz

Firefox doesn't support HDR at all, which is the main reason why I don't use it.
 
I don't know why you're so fixated on PCI-P3 color space coverage as your indicator of HDR quality. A monitor with 85% coverage and a good local dimming backlight will have better HDR than a monitor with 99% coverage and no local dimming.
 
Decent HDR monitors can be had for $280 nowadays, but it's only one specific model from AOC so far. All the other monitors that market HDR in this price range don't offer any real HDR capabilities.